We’re Going to Semi-War Against ISIS

Which means, of course, that we will Total-Lose:

President Barack Obama will soon give Congress his proposal for a new authorization for the use of military force against Islamic State fighters, and it will place strict limits on the types of U.S. ground forces that can be deployed, according to congressional sources.

Almost six months after the president began using force against the Islamic State advance in Iraq and then in Syria, the White House is ready to ask Congress for formal permission to continue the effort. Until now, the administration has maintained it has enough authority to wage war through the 2001 AUMF on al-Qaeda, the 2002 AUMF regarding Iraq and Article II of the Constitution. But under pressure from Capitol Hill, the White House has now completed the text of a new authorization and could send it to lawmakers as early as Wednesday.

If enacted, the president’s AUMF could effectively constrain the next president from waging a ground war against the Islamic State group until at least 2018. Aides warned that the White House may tweak the final details before releasing the document publicly…

It must be kept in mind that Obama’s policies are based upon the theory that the Middle East is screwed up largely because of American power – that if we hadn’t been messing things up for the last 60 years, things would be fine. ISIS, in Obama’s view, is the natural outgrowth of all the nasty things we’ve done (and Israel has done, as well). The best outcome that Obama can see is that by currying favor with nations like Iran while distancing ourselves from Israel, the people of the Middle East will see that we’re on their side and will start to moderate their views about us. ISIS, though, is a problem – as it gets all head-choppy, pressure comes on Obama to do something. The pressure, to Obama, is stupid – it comes from people who don’t appear to realize that from the Crusades until now, we’ve done the Middle East wrong. But, it has to be dealt with – and what better way to deal with it than to pretend to fight ISIS while the real action is in making a deal with Iran?

So, we’ll get this new authorization to use force and we’ll get a bit of bombing and such…and Obama and minions will keep up the happy talk that ISIS is being degraded, etc. but, meanwhile, nothing which will actually destroy ISIS is going to be done. Which means that no matter how much we hit them – and there will be a lot of battering of ISIS going on – we won’t get rid of them. In fact, what we’re likely to do is make heroes out of them…to them, it will appear that they are manfully and successfully standing up to the most powerful nation on earth. If they survive, at all, then it is a sublime victory. And survive they will, unless an army goes into ISIS territory and roots out the ISIS fanatics step by step. This is not what Obama proposes to do – and it appears he wants to prevent his successor from doing, as well.

Are you ready for the next two years people? It is just going to get worse and worse…

Evil Religion?

A Salon article about the evils of religion – the usual sophomoric yammering, but this passage caught my eye:

…The Second World War is no better, perhaps in respects far worse, although more complex. Two thousand years of anti-Semitism by the Catholic Church and four hundred years by Protestants had to have an effect and be a causal factor in the persecution and killing of the Jews…

And yet, for all that 2,000 years of Catholicism and 400 years of Protestantism, no one had quite got around to lining up the Jews and massacring them until none were left. I hate to break it to you, atheists, but the only sort of person who could build an Auschwitz is someone alienated from God. You see, while Hitler was, indeed, baptized a Catholic, the best historical analysis of his life indicates that he probably stopped going to Mass shortly after he was confirmed at the age of 15 – and that he only did the confirmation to please his mother. Hitler turned 15 in 1904. He started oppressing Jews 29 years later – that is a bit of water under the bridge. During that 29 year period, Hitler became convinced of a lot of very stupid things, all of which were in direct contravention of Christian dogma. To some how say that the Christian dogma he rejected was the foundation for his un-Christian beliefs and actions is absurd.

The reason progressives, atheists and the like are often on about how Christian anti-Semitism was the precursor to the Final Solution is because they dare not face the truth: Hitler was a product of the Enlightenment. The whole concept of tearing down religious dogma and setting in its place an appeal to science and the complete autonomy of the individual in determining morality is the bedrock of modern thought. But what if the science being appealed to is nonsense? And what if the autonomous individual decides that something horrific is morally licit? Where does the progressive atheist turn to for redress? No where. He’s rejected the only thing which can keep things on an even keel: religious Authority.

I can hear atheists getting mad – Hitler believed nonsense such as Social Darwinism and in eugenics. Yeah? So, what? When Hitler was developing, those ideas were Settled Science. They were rejected by the Church, but no progressive back then paid any mind to what the Church had to say. In fact, in my view, the only reason things like eugenics have gone by the wayside is because of Hitler – when he tore the lid off and showed what can be done by a man who rejects all religious authority, the result was so clearly bad that people had to change their tune, at least to some extent. Here in the 21st century we are getting back on the eugenics bandwagon with some advanced thinkers holding that we should kill “defective” children after they are born.

To get away from Hitler on this – Lenin and Stalin were also people who rejected religious dogma and were determined to act upon science. Seriously, folks: when Lenin and Stalin were butchering people in great, big, bloody batches they were convinced that rock-solid, indisputable science demanded it. And plenty of people agreed with them – and I’m not talking just about communists, I’m talking about supposedly wise and kind progressives in the rest of the world. To be sure, such people weren’t writing articles saying that poor peasants should be sent to slave labor camps to be worked to death – but they were writing articles saying that poor peasants were backwards and needed to be brought into the modern world. Can’t just leave them alone – and don’t appeal to some worn out, religious dogma about the sanctity of human life. We’re building a new society here, folks! Sure, its sad that some have to suffer – but think of the benefits future generations will reap! Talk like that was common on the left while Stalin was murdering 2 to 7 million people in Ukraine (for comparison – in the 300 odd years of the Inquisition, about 400 people were done in…Stalin murdered those Ukrainians in just a few years; some how or another, those who reject religious dogma seem capable of killing far more people, far more quickly, then even the wost religious bigot who ever lived).

Anti-religious folks are often on about how bad Christians are. I plead guilty. Here I am, a baptized Catholic who goes to Mass and confession on a regular basis and I’m often greedy, mean, dishonest and foolish. That’s me with the lid on – the lid of Catholic dogma. I can only shudder about how I’d be without it. And that’s the thing – Christian people aren’t perfect they are just, on average, better than they’d be without Christianity riding herd over them. Another thing our non-religious brothers like to say is that they are fine and decent people without religion. Well, you might not be as good as you think you are. You see, if I’m in good health and have sufficient wealth and no one is irritating me at the moment and I then say a kind word to someone, then I really haven’t exemplified moral excellence. In fact, I’ve done nothing of note, at all: there was nothing else I could possibly do in such circumstances. But if I’m ill and poor and I’m being very much irritated by my brother and I say something nasty – what, then? Well, a lot of people would excuse that in themselves. Trouble is, there’s still no excuse for it. My job, as a fellow human being, is to be kind to everyone – no matter how lousy they are – even when I’m in the very worst condition. Unless you are doing that, you really aren’t being all that swell a person. I’ve a long history of interacting atheists and progressive types who reject religious dogma: I have not found among such people a lot of love of fellow man. In fact, I often find a cross, bitter person who can’t put up with any opposition. This is not to say I’ve never found such a person who wasn’t nice – I’m just saying that I haven’t found that such people are paragons of virtue. Meanwhile, more times than I can count a Christian has done me a good turn simply because Christ commanded that it be done. You can take your chances on the atheist is having a good day, or you can work on the assumption that the Christian can be called to his duty. I take the latter as more likely.

My main point here is that without an absolute, indisputable standard of right and wrong, things will be messed up very badly. And an absolute standard requires belief in God. The crucial things must be either right or wrong because God says so – if you try to work it out any other way then no matter how well you construct your argument, it is as flimsy as straw in a hurricane. No one has to agree to it – and anyone is free to construct a different argument to justify whatever it is they want to do. I say we must not massacre people – and I say that because God has forbidden us to murder; that God uniquely created each of us for a purpose and it is not for us to decide when a person shall die. An atheist can say we must not massacre people – and another atheist can say, “why not?”, and the first atheist really has nothing to say. The second atheist can get his Science out (with charts, graphs, computer models and a consensus that 90% of scientists agree) and say that human beings are destroying the earth and we need two billion less people in order to have a sustainable environment and so two billion people have to die so the other five billion can live. What’s the argument against it? There is none – except to say that killing two billion people is wrong and must not be allowed; but that is an appeal to supernatural morality.

Errors there will be. People will get things wrong. For instance, many of our Muslim brothers are getting things wrong. ISIS is especially getting it wrong – but only a Christian, Jew or a Muslim who has got it right can really oppose what they are doing. What is the atheist argument against ISIS? That because ISIS does it in the name of religion that they have got it wrong? Suppose ISIS started saying they were chopping off people’s heads in order to reduce population pressure on the environment in the Middle East? Once again, only an appeal to God’s law allows us to firmly and without equivocation say that ISIS is wrong and must be stopped – and as we see, those most convinced of the existence of God and His laws are most firm in desiring ISIS be destroyed. Our more progressive, non-believing people are less convinced that there’s anything to be done – more likely to find excuses for their actions rather than craft plans to get them to stop.

Our progressives and atheists will keep working for the day when religion is no more. They will lawsuit and regulate and insult in the hopes that on one, fine morning in the future no one wakes up and says a prayer for the day. The trouble is, if they ever get to that happy event, they’ll find that some people have come up with rather interesting ideas, and they’ll have no defense against them.

Hey, Obama: About Those Crusades

If there’s one thing which irritates me about the left – in general – it is their rank ignorance of history. It is hard to get someone on the left to properly understand what happened even a few years ago – when they were alive and presumptively noticing things happening – let alone anything which happened more than a few decades ago. Now, to be sure, there are a few historical events that the left has latched on to in order to justify their world view…one of them is the Crusades.

To the left, the Crusades were just wanton cruelty – hordes of Christian bigots went into Muslim lands to kill, steal and destroy everything in their path. This was done in the name of religion and, so, religion is bad. This isn’t even a childish view of history – this is a view of history entirely divorced from historical fact. Bring up to a liberal the fact that, for instance, Egypt was once entirely Christian and only became Muslim after the Muslims conquered Egypt in an imperialist war – and then forced, over time, the population to become Muslim, or suffer – and you’ll get a blank stare, or immediate reference to one of the other things liberals heard about: the Inquisition (we’ll deal with that issue some other time). There is just no knowledge on the left of what happened – nor any desire to know what happened because the facts just get in the way of the Narrative.

But, still, I just want to enter into the record, as it were, that the Crusades were a defensive war against a rapacious, cruel enemy who attacked Christian civilization without reason. To give an idea of the flavor of the Muslim way of war, here’s a passage from The Hapsburgs: Portrait of a Dynasty by Edward Crankshaw:

The Turks were not nice fighters. They burned and massacred for the love of it, not in the heat of battle or victory, not in drunken rioting, but in cold blood and under precise instructions from their command. In Perchtoldsdorf, for instance, just outside Vienna, the townspeople and refugees from the surrounding countryside had taken refuge in the church and barricaded it. The Turks first burned down the little town, then sent an envoy to the church to promise safe-conduct to all inside on payment of a certain sum. The pasha in command sat himself down on a red carpet in the ruins of the village square and demanded that the keys of the church and the ransom money be brought to him by a fair-haired virgin who should carry a flag of truce and wear a crown of flowers. The village bailiff’s seventeen-year-old daughter was chosen to lead the way. As the villagers emerged into the light of day they were disarmed and seized. The men were slaughtered on the spot. The pasha reserved to himself the pleasure of killing the unfortunate young girl. The rest of the women and children were sent back to Turkey to be sold as slaves…

That was in 1683, quite a long time after the Crusades – but conquering Muslim armies were like that from the start. Just read up a bit on the captures of Constantinople or Famagusta. At Famagusta, after enduring a siege of 13 months, the Christians were offered terms – surrender and be allowed to leave. And so, in good faith, they surrendered. Nothing doing. Marco Antonio Bragadin, the commander, was flayed alive and his skin stuffed with straw and then sent on to the Turkish Sultan as a trophy; the rest of the Christian population was massacred. It is small wonder that when faced with enemies like this, Christian armies were often ungentle with Muslims when they defeated them.

The Crusades, themselves, were a counter-attack. For four hundred years the Christians had been attacked and forced ever back. One Muslim army made it to central France before being turned back. Muslims were continually boasting of their desire to conquer all of the Christian west – and often making good on their boast as one Christian nation after another fell to Muslim arms. The immediate spur to the Crusades was the Muslim victory over the Christian Greek Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071…with that defeat, the Byzantine Empire was rocked on its heels and no one could say that the Greeks, who had barred the door to Muslim conquest in Europe for 400 years, would be able to stem the tide. An army was needed to redress the balance – and an army was provided: the Crusaders.

In the end, the stated purpose of the Crusades – the recovery of the Holy Land – was a failure. But by projecting power into the heart of Islam and fighting them there, Europe received some breathing room. Time to continue the reconquest of Spain and time for Europe’s nations to become powerful enough to repel the Muslim onslaught when, at long last, the Muslims finally conquered the Byzantines in the middle of the 15th century. They still made the running for a while – conquering Greece, Serbia and Hungary before running up against the rock of resistance known as Vienna. In 1683 they made their last try, as described in that quote above. Only the timely arrival at Vienna of a Polish army commanded by the hero-King Jan Sobieski saved the day, and in the nick of time – Vienna’s defenses were breached the day before the Poles rode in to battle and scattered the Muslim army.

All of that was a long time ago. Let no one say that what happened in the 11th century justifies any action taken in the 21st century. The Muslims have their gripes, but the graves of Europeans in Austria and France attest to the fact that non-Muslims also have their gripes.

May We Please Fight ISIS, Now?

How about it? And I’m mostly looking at you, liberals – from Obama on down. And especially, at the moment, all you liberals who were outraged by American Sniper…somehow getting mad that an American soldier was killing these sorts of people in battle. Can we fight them, now? Or is the burning of a Jordanian pilot just all Bush’s fault and so we should get on to discussions about micro-aggressions and man-spreading?

Getting back to American Sniper for a moment, a lot of liberals didn’t like the fact that Chris Kyle referred to our enemies as “savages”. Well, boys and girls, Chris Kyle was clearly undiplomatic, but he was just as clearly telling the truth. I don’t care what Israel has done. I don’t care what the United States has done. I don’t care what anyone has done since the beginning of time which was wrong, nothing justifies putting a man in a cage and burning him alive. Or throwing a gay man off a building (and then stoning him to death when the fall from the building doesn’t kill him). Or strapping a bomb on a ten year old girl and sending her into a market. Or enslaving girls and women. Nothing justifies that. That isn’t blowback for anything. That is just savagery. That is brutality. That is inhumanity – and the only thing anyone with a spine and a heart wants is that it be stopped…and with not too many questions asked about just how stopping it is accomplished.

Jordan has reportedly executed two jihadists who had been held for unrelated crimes. Technically, this is an injustice. But what in heck else are they to do? ISIS considers everyone non-ISIS to be lower than filth – one thing everyone has learned now is that you can’t be taken prisoner by ISIS. At best you’ll be enslaved. Anyone fighting ISIS now has just one rule – fight until dead.

As of right now, we can probably make short work of ISIS without too great an expenditure of effort. This isn’t about rebuilding Iraq or Syria, or fostering democracy in the area. This is nothing but the elimination of a force dedicated to carrying out evil deeds. A couple regiments of Marines and/or Airborne troops, backed up with air power and Special Forces combined with fully armed Kurdish troops (the Kurds do seem pretty decent – they ain’t perfect, but better by far than ISIS) should be able to crush these savages. Once done, we don’t stick around. Let those there post-ISIS work it out – or fight it out – amongst themselves. We’d just be lending a hand to destroy something that needs to be destroyed…and the sooner the better. And while doing it, let no one get too finicky about things. I’d fully expect the Kurds – and others – to take a pound of flesh out of any ISIS fighters they capture. I wouldn’t agonize greatly over any particular actions our troops do. The enemy is not very nice and will do nasty things which would inevitably place our troops in a position where bad things would happen. War against savages is like that.

Or, we can just ignore it. It’ll get worse, of course. But at least it won’t disturb us. Right?

A Brokered GOP Convention?

As Allahpundit noted, my God, it’s full of page views…so, what the heck, I’ll look over Sean Trende’s analysis, too:

… in truth, I’m actually hopeful about this year’s campaign, because I think it could be unlike anything we’ve seen in a very long time. I think the Republican Party really could wind up with a brokered convention – that is, a race where no candidate receives a majority of the delegates by the end of voting. In fact, it might well be the most likely outcome, if only because no particular outcome is particularly probable.

This race is intriguing not just because of one possible outcome. It is interesting because it is difficult even to formulate a workable theory of the race. Charlie Cook uses a brackets metaphor, while Jim Geraghty and Larry Sabato think of the race in terms of tiers, but all of these have problems. Instead, I see a race that is largely chaotic. It is one where an unusually large number of candidates have perfectly plausible paths, if not to the nomination, then at least to lengthy runs deep into the balloting process.

This is because 2016 really is the deepest GOP field in a very, very long time. In fact, it isn’t even close…

It is, indeed, that. In fact, in terms of talent, the GOP has an embarrassment of riches. Contrast this to the pathetic state of the Democrats – to-be-69 year old Hillary; and if the Democrats pass on her they’ve got the intellectual and achievement powerhouses of Biden, Warren and O’Malley to choose from. None of the Democrats can hold an intellectual or achievement candle to even the weakest GOP contenders. The bad news is that the Democrats are still favored to in in 2016, even if worn-out, hacktastic Hillary is the nominee. But, still, there is that chance the GOP can win, so the GOP contest is worth winning and thus we see the large field of contenders. Will it wind up brokered? One is wary of disputing someone like Sean Trende, but I’ll say there isn’t a snowball’s chance in heck of it happening.

To be sure, Trende is right in that each of the contenders represents a certain segment of the GOP base and as the total vote is widely divided, even someone commanding relatively small support could battle far into the primary process and the sum total of all this is that no GOPer obtains a first-ballot, nominating majority and thus a brokered convention. I just don’t think it will work out that way.

The reason I don’t is because there is Scott Walker, and to a lesser extent, Bobby Jindal. Both are successful governors who battled the left and won. Both are youthful (especially compared to the Democrats), energetic and have great biographies. Both, as far as can be told, haven’t so much of a touch of scandal behind them and neither of them bear strong and public connections to the Establishment money-bags of the party. While both have plenty of good points for both Establishment and TEA Party to like, they also neither frighten overmuch the Establishment nor disappoint overmuch the TEA Party base of the GOP. Both are credible with social conservatives without being tied to positions which can turn off independent voters. They can credibly run as anti-government outsiders while being enough on the inside to garner support from low-information-voters who don’t want a war against government, per se. Each of them is a potential Reagan in the sense of being able to bridge the gaps and form a grand coalition for victory – with Walker having the better shot at this due to his epic battle against – and victory over – the forces of the left. In the end, one of the two men seems likely, to me, to slip in and start winning enough early victories to start an avalanche of support to fall their way in time to secure the nomination on a first ballot.

There are a lot of people in the GOP contest – and one must have at least some sort of egoism to even desire to be President, so a lot of GOPers who can’t win the contest will stay in when they really shouldn’t. A lot of money will be spent – and ink spilled – as various forces and factors try to take control and impose their will. But in men like Walker and Jindal, we have the sort of leaders, I think, who can impose their will upon the throng…just as Reagan was able to do in an equally fractious time (people forget that Reagan was despised by many in the GOP). And I think that either man can beat Hillary, or whomever the Democrats nominate. Not easily. Not in a walk over. But the trick can be done – because both men can unify the disparate elements of the GOP while retaining more than enough cross-over appeal to make an aged Hillary representing a corrupt and worn-out Establishment a loser.

The “Affordable” Health Care Act?

Obamacare (a/k/a The Patient Protection and “Affordable” Care Act), was passed during the Christmas season of 2010 in the dead of night ‘to find out what’s in it’ This progressive panacea pitched as a means to supposedly insure the then-projected figure of 30-million uninsured Americans (many of whom were young, healthy and uninsured by choice); was passed in a convoluted effort to supposedly ensure that no American went without “affordable” health insurance. At the time it was pitched, Obamacare was supposed to cost somewhere to the tune of $900 billion dollars..and for that ‘investment’ we would supposedly in turn be ushered into an era of American Health-Care Nirvana, a new, Utopia in which there would be no more uninsured citizens (or undocumented immigrants, for that matter). As a bonus, if Americans liked their current health plans and doctors–they could keep them– PERIOD! What a deal, right?

But oh– the Pièce de résistance– the crowning, promised achievement, the “Promised Land”– would be that moment in time in which which those 30,000,000 unwashed Americans (Remember that figure– 30,000,000) projected to be without health insurance–the very raison d’etre for Obamacare’s very existence, would finally be insured! Everyone would get and receive the ‘affordable’ health care they needed! Boffo! Yay Obama!! Healthcare Nirvana–we have arrived!! .

Well, here we are– four-and-a-half years later. Now, Americans can no longer choose to be uninsured, at least not without paying what is amounting to a hefty fine on their taxes (much higher than was originally quoted, btw). Millions of those who thought they could keep their current health plans and doctors got a surprise letter from their insurance companies to the very contrary. The $900 billion dollar original price tag is now a hefty $2 TRILLION–$50,000 per person covered– over 10 years. Many who don’t qualify for taxpayer-subsidized insurance premiums are seeing a two- to three-fold increase either in their premiums and/or in the skyrocketing deductibles they must pay out of pocket before the benefits even begin to kick in. I have personally spoken with a number of people who bought insurance on an Obamacare exchange who were in need of surgical procedures but can’t afford the new higher deductible, and so are foregoing those procedures. And a number of those people told me that the insurance that they had held prior to the Obamacare rollout (and was discontinued forthwith) would have covered those procedures at little or no out-of-pocket cost beyond their premiums.

To bring it full circle– First the good news: remember those 30,000,000 unwashed Americans who weren’t insured, but mostly didn’t want insurance– you know, those healthy young people for which this entire fiasco was purportedly set into motion to cover? Many of those are now covered!

The bad news? We now have 31,000,000 (yes, that’s with a *31*) projected people that Obamacare will NOT cover– many who desperately need and WANT insurance–and many remain uncovered because the new premiums are now just too expensive for them to afford (refer to the word “Affordable” in the first sentence). On top of that, many millions more now do have insurance that isn’t worth the paper on which it is written, because they can’t afford the ridiculously high deductibles that before the ACA were absent or much lower.

The “Living Antonym to King Midas” (C), Barack Hussein Obama, with the help of a willing democrat-controlled Congress as well as propaganda organs such as the AARP and Big Unions, has transformed what was an imperfect, yet perfectly functional, highly innovative health care system into an abject mess that creates many more problems than it could ever solve (look up the acronym FUBAR).

We began this unicorn-fart propelled gallop into health-care hell with 30,000,000 uninsured, yet with a fairly functional and affordable system for most people, at most times.

Now, four- and a-half years into that long goodnight, we STILL find ourselves with *31*,000,000 uninsured Americans, but now with a “new and improved’ system populated by skyrocketing premiums and deductibles putting health care costs out of the reach of millions upon millions more.

Anyone else besides me see the sardonic irony in this?

A Greek tragedy writ large. God help us.

Obamacare To Cost $2 Trillion Over Next Decade, Leave 31 Million Uninsured

According to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office


Tax Liberalism!


I don’t know whether this is demonic, inspired, or both: “A sweeping proposal to cut taxes for Maine families and businesses could upend one of the most widely accepted practices in the country: the property-tax exemption for nonprofit organizations… A recent budget plan by Republican Gov. Paul LePage calling for an overhaul of individual, corporate and sales taxes also would make Maine the first state in the nation to require colleges, hospitals and other large charities to go on the property-tax rolls in their municipalities.” This proposal – which specifically exempts “churches and government-owned entities” – would be the first of its kind in the country, and will probably not pass without a bloody brawl in the state legislature.

I’ll go with “inspired”, even if Governor LePage wasn’t thinking about crushing the left – because it is steps like these which will destroy the left. Another strong tactic is what Governor Walker did in Wisconsin – even if he didn’t intend his reform of government-sector unions as an anti-left measure, that is what it has worked out to be, and one of the best developments in American government since the misbegotten “Progressive Era” started in the early 20th century.

It is my view that the left retains political power by gift of government – which means, at bottom, by gift of the American taxpayer, 70%+ of which disagree with the left (yes, even when someone of the left like Obama gets 51% of the vote, it still stands – if people prior to voting for Obama knew precisely what he was up to, they’d have voted for a guy serving 10-20 for armed robbery before they would have voted for him…you have to be pretty darned kooky to agree with what Obama actually does, as opposed to what his spin-meisters say he does…if Obama had run on what he was actually going to do, he wouldn’t have cracked 30% of the vote). Via direct subsidy from the Treasury or via various tax gimmicks, the left is awash in funds provided by people who disagree with the left, and the left then uses this vast wealth to purchase the influence necessary to get their views enacted – by law or by extra-legal action, whatever works best for the moment. If we were to de-fund the left – kick them off the taxpayer’s dime – then the left would dry up and blow away. Going after the public sector unions – and the tax-free institutions that are the bedrock of the left – is the way to do it. Though I’d add that my wealth tax is also geared precisely towards crushing the left…I know a lot of conservatives are opposed to any such thing, but that is because most conservatives don’t understand that the filthy rich, even when they are Republican, are functional Progressives…they grow up with Progressives, go to school with Progressives, work with Progressives..they might have a different idea of defense policy and be more in favor of lower taxes than Progressives, but when push comes to shove (ie, when it is time to put, say, reasonable restrictions on abortion or actually eliminate a government program) the rich by and large come down on the side of the Progressives. The wealth tax I propose would hit hard at the money such rich people tend to use for buying support…which more often than not means providing funds for Progressive causes.

The main thing, though, is to take away the left’s money – Enact the Equal Income Fairness Act of 2015 and take every dime for it from liberal organizations…use the money to help poor and middle class people start up businesses. Its a win/win – we’re destroying the left and helping to create more middle class people to vote against them.

HAT TIP: Moe Lane.